1 : engaged in warfare or combat
2 : aggressively active (as in a cause)
Why am I one, do you ask...?
High school girls beheaded because they're
Second in a series. And believe me, I won't run out of material.
A blog dedicated to the pontification of my own peculiar libertarian ideas and the "Fisking" of the editorial stance of the Des Moines Register.
Judges know very well how to read the Constitution broadly when they are sympathetic to the right being asserted. We have held, without much ado, that "speech, or... The press" also means the Internet, and that "persons, houses, papers, and effects" also means public telephone booths. When a particular right comports especially well with our notions of good social policy, we build magnificent legal edifices on elliptical constitutional phrases--or even the white spaces between lines of constitutional text. But, as the panel amply demonstrates, when we'?re none too keen on a particular constitutional guarantee, we can be equally ingenious in burying language that is incontrovertibly there.Wow. This man gets it.
It is wrong to use some constitutional provisions as spring-boards for major social change while treating others like senile relatives to be cooped up in a nursing home until they quit annoying us. As guardians of the Constitution, we must be consistent in interpreting its provisions. If we adopt a jurisprudence sympathetic to individual rights, we must give broad compass to all constitutional provisions that protect individuals from tyranny. If we take a more statist approach, we must give all such provisions narrow scope. Expanding some to gargantuan proportions while discarding others like a crumpled gum wrapper is not faithfully applying the Constitution; it's using our power as federal judges to constitutionalize our personal preferences. . . .
All too many of the other great tragedies of history - Stalin's atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few - were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. See Kleinfeld Dissent at 5997-99. If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars. My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.- the words "the people" can mean "the state".
ROME, Italy (Reuters) -- The city of Rome has banned goldfish bowls, which animal rights activists say are cruel, and has made regular dog-walks mandatory in the Italian capital, the town's council said on Tuesday.I'd like to say that I'm shocked and appalled. But I'm just appalled.
He failed to respond decisively on first learning of the three most cataclysmic events to occur during his administration - Sept. 11, 2001; Dec. 26, 2004 (the Asian tsunami); and Aug. 29, 2005 (Hurricane Katrina). In the latter case, victims were locked in a Superdome with rotting bodies while the federal government forked out $236 million to Carnival Cruise Lines to take other refugees cruising.First, I'd probably not put 9/11 in the same category as the tsunami and Hurricane Katrina. There's a subtle but definite difference between natural disasters and an act of war.
Over the past three months, 67 percent of motorists exceeded 70 mph and 25 percent of them drove faster than 75 mph, state records show. Four percent exceeded 80 mph. Overall, the average speed on Iowa's rural interstates has inched up nearly a half-mile per hour to 71.86 mph.Holy crap! 71.86 mph!!!
"The Iowa State Patrol is not happy because our goal is 100 percent compliance" with the speed limit, said Sgt. Genie Clemens , a patrol spokeswoman. "We are going to do the best we can with the people that we have in order to make people comply with the law."Well, that just won't do Sgt. Genie. We citizens of the great state of Iowa deserve and demand 100 percent compliance. Until then, expect the intrepid investigative reporters of the Des Moines Register will be watching you... always watching.
POLICE are being advised to treat Muslim domestic violence cases differently out of respect for Islamic traditions and habits.First in a series.
Officers are also being urged to work with Muslim leaders, who will try to keep the families together.
Women's groups are concerned the politically correct policing could give comfort to wife bashers and keep their victims in a cycle of violence.
Rights are like expiring coupons: Stash them in a drawer, don't use them and you risk losing them.I think of "rights" more as a pair of socks. You did know that "the Man" through his government agents and lackeys steals one sock from each pair you own. Not aliens. Not the sock eating Dryer Monster. The MAN.
This town has a lot going for it - cheap parking, minor-league hockey -? but it's short on characters. It doesn't have enough of those in-your-face types who are obnoxious, talented, smart and funny.Ah knock it off Rob. That's why you and Rekha are here. Fish, ponds and all that.
The gun industry has built its popularity on promoting the 2nd Amendment Â? Americans have a right to bear arms and protect themselves. But when it comes to protecting itself, the industry runs to Congress. Lawmakers, like victims of an armed robbery, give the industry everything it demands.Okay, it's not just the "gun industry" that's promoting this law. It's citizens like yours truly who are concerned that the anti-gun lobby (I wonder if the REB considers anti-gun crusaders as "special interest groups"?) will use civil litigation to destroy the gun industry.
This legislation is an exercise in special-interest politics. No other industry enjoys the protection Congress wants to grant the gun industry.Maybe that is because no other industry (at least yet...) has its existence threatened by "tort gone wild". Make no mistake about it, anti-gun groups are engaged in an incrementalist campaign to eliminate private ownership of firearms. These people believe that guns themselves are the problem. They really believe this and will do anything they can to achieve their goal.
The gun industry likely isn't responsible for the acts of individuals who use its products to commit crimes.Then the REB should have not a problem with this legislation. Here is the "Purposes" section of the act in full:
(1) To prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and their trade associations, for the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended.
(2) To preserve a citizen's access to a supply of firearms and ammunition for all lawful purposes, including hunting, self-defense, collecting, and competitive or recreational shooting.
(3) To guarantee a citizen's rights, privileges, and immunities, as applied to the States, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, pursuant to section 5 of that Amendment.
(4) To prevent the use of such lawsuits to impose unreasonable burdens on interstate and foreign commerce.
(5) To protect the right, under the First Amendment to the Constitution, of manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and trade associations, to speak freely, to assemble peaceably, and to petition the Government for a redress of their grievances.
(6) To preserve and protect the Separation of Powers doctrine and important principles of federalism, State sovereignty and comity between sister States.
(7) To exercise congressional power under art. IV, section 1 (the Full Faith and Credit Clause) of the United States Constitution. .
Then again, there may be some cases where gun manufacturers or dealers are negligent. Again, it's up to a court to decide.I agree. And so do the Congresscritters that voted for the Act. If the REB had actually read the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, they would know that it lists all of the conditions where a civil suit can be brought against gun manufacturers and dealers. Don't believe me? Well, read it yourself:
(A) IN GENERAL- The term `qualified civil liability action' means a civil action or proceeding or an administrative proceeding brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a trade association, for damages, punitive damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, abatement, restitution, fines, or penalties, or other relief' resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party, but shall not include--Maybe I'm a simpleton, but it seems to me that these exceptions cover the gamut of potential malfeasance on the part of gun manufacturers and dealers.
(i) an action brought against a transferor convicted under section 924(h) of title 18, United States Code, or a comparable or identical State felony law, by a party directly harmed by the conduct of which the transferee is so convicted;
(ii) an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se;
(iii) an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought, including--
(I) any case in which the manufacturer or seller knowingly made any false entry in, or failed to make appropriate entry in, any record required to be kept under Federal or State law with respect to the qualified product, or aided, abetted, or conspired with any person in making any false or fictitious oral or written statement with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of a qualified product; or
(II) any case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, abetted, or conspired with any other person to sell or otherwise dispose of a qualified product, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that the actual buyer of the qualified product was prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm or ammunition under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code;
(iv) an action for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of the product;
(v) an action for death, physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that where the discharge of the product was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense then such act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or property damage; or
(vi) and action or proceeding commenced by the Attorney General to enforce the provisions of chapter 44 of title 18 or chapter 53 of title 26, United States Code.
And Democrats, with their zest for gender politics, need this reminder: To give a woman a seat on a crowded bus because she is a woman is gallantry. To give a woman a seat on the Supreme Court because she is a woman is a dereliction of senatorial duty. It also is an affront to mature feminism, which may bridle at gallantry but should recoil from condescension.Next, the Republicans:
As for Republicans, any who vote for Miers will thereafter be ineligible to argue that it is important to elect Republicans because they are conscientious conservers of the judicial branch's invaluable dignity. Finally, any Republican senator who supinely acquiesces in President Bush's reckless abuse of presidential discretion -- or who does not recognize the Miers nomination as such -- can never be considered presidential material.Oh man.
In their unseemly eagerness to assure Miers's conservative detractors that she will reach the "right" results, her advocates betray complete incomprehension of this: Thoughtful conservatives' highest aim is not to achieve this or that particular outcome concerning this or that controversy. Rather, their aim for the Supreme Court is to replace semi-legislative reasoning with genuine constitutional reasoning about the Constitution's meaning as derived from close consideration of its text and structure. Such conservatives understand that how you get to a result is as important as the result. Indeed, in an important sense, the path that the Supreme Court takes to the result often is the result.[Emphasis Mine]Right on brother Will!